and that the decree, in failing to provide for this, necessarily fails to cQnform to what wl1i'J intended' by the court in rendering it. I am satisfied that the, shou,ld have been with what the plaintiff claims, but I am not satisfied that the error complaineq of is a clerical error.' 'It may be a judicial error. If I shall undertake to cor.rect thiil'deeree upon the ground that it does not to my own.',opini()i1 of what the deeree should be, I the the and decrees of my, under]lie.preten.se of. correcting them.. The mere faot ;oferror, if found to ·exist,does not justify an inference that there has been a clerical error in entering the decree. The decree pealln tl,l,e <;lrCUlt counof,appeals, wherethe decree appealed from 'a:ft;lpned IIlore thail, aI',ear and a 'h8:1$ ago. 6 0,,0. 'A. 10, 56 Fed. 54!I., }these been a change intAe Jlldges of since the decree was rendered, indeQf:?ther make,it the' I qt thIS I should hesitate to mterfere ,WIth the such circumstan:ces upon proof, however conclusive, thatth¢re had been a clerical error in entering it. The prayer of the is denied. '
SIDDALL v. BREGY. (Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. No.3,
, ,A circuit court of
December 4, 18M.)
United Stater;; has no authority to review the judgmentS of the state, courts, and hold their judges 'responsible for faIlure to dir;;charge· their judicial duties.
OF STATE JUDGE.
This action by Theodore W. Sidl1all against the Honorable F. Awedee Uregy.
The plaintiff filed the folloWing statement of claim, viz.: "F. Ame<lee :aregy, the defendant, is one of the judges of the court of comOf the commonwealth for the county of Philadelphia, sworn to mon obey and administer the laws, of the United &tates and of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania without fear or favor. ·His neglect or refusal to do so deprives the state of arepubllcan form of government. He has denied, and now denies, to me, within.his, jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws, commonweal1;h of Pennsylvania and of the United States. espealike of cially of clause 1 of the fOllrteenth article of .the United States constitution. I bring this action to recover, from him reparation In damages therefor in the sum of one hundred thousand dollars. In support of my claim I show that I obtained from the said 'court of common pleas a sUbpoena commanding one M.ary Siddall tQ.'IlPp£>ar and show. cause, if any she had, why a decree Of nullity of a void marriage contract should not be e:lltered of record, said suit being entitled ,'Sl<idall VB. Siddall, Common PleaS No.1, March Term, 1894. No. 5,' and I ask that the records of that suit be made part of this, statement. Said subpHna was based upon a libel bearing the hand and selJI of a magistrate IiUld ;111e signature of a judge as required by law, and in the custody ot of the court. "(1) In or about March, 1894, I exhibited to J l1 dge Bregy, in court, affidavit and evidence that an 'aspOrtation had been made of my libel from among
SIDDALL V. BREGY.
'the archives of the court of common pleas, to my, lujury, the same being' a felony at common law, and demanded process and, remedy; whereupon the judge refUsed me for: the wrong, and dismissed the case, thereby becoming an accessory to the larceny of the records of his own court, to my own special wrong and injury. "(2) And, further, I did then and there exhibit to Judge Bregy uffidavit ,and evidence that the prothonotary and others had pUblished copies of my said libel, or preliminary proceeding, together with defamatory comments, to my aggrievance, the sarrie 'being a contempt of court, indictable under the laws of the commonwealth at my instance and demand. The prothonotary and others came into court. and made affidavit that my allegations were true; whereupon I demanded process and remedy, which said Judge Bregy refused, and dismissed the case, thereby becoming an accessory to contempt of his own court, to my special wrong and injury. "(3) And. further, I did then and there submit affidavit and evidence that the prothonotary ,and others had published criminlJ.l libel upon me, anll I demanded process and remedy; Whereupon the judge refused me remedy for the wrong, and dismissed the case, thereby becoming an accessory to the escape of the wrongdoers, to my especial wrong and injury. "(4) And, further, I did then and there submit affidavit and evidence to .Judge Bregy that the prothonotary had allowed, aided, and abetted narties other than parties to the SUit, without an order of the comi, in direct disobedience of an order of court and of an act of assembly, to inspect, copy, and carry off my libel out of his official custody, and I demanded process and remedy, which the judge wrongfully refused, and allowed the wrongdoers to escape, to my special wrong and injury. "(5) And, further, said Judge Bregy did then and there override the acts of assembly, and make law and practice in this wise: He ordered and directed the prothonotary to place among the records of the court in Siddall v. Siddall a paper which did not, and does not, bear the hand and seal of a magistrate nor the-signature of a jUdge, and to pretend that it was a good and lawful libel in divorce. He did this, upon the motion of one of the pare ties whom he was required by his oath of office to hold to answer for the crimes, contempts, and misdemeanors above set forth, with the intention of shielding the prothonotary and his ronfederates, and of hindering and de· laying me. He did it against my objection and protest, and notwithstanding my offer to produce a duplicate original, which should conform to the requirements of the law, when and as soon as the offenders were indicted and! convicted. Moreover, none of the parties to the said suit asked for the order. It was made upon the motion of an impertinent intermeddler. "(6) Notwithstanding that it was clearly and fully disciosed by the libel. the answer, and the affidavits that the nullity of the marriage contract had been established judicially before a tribunal selected by the commonwealth itself and by the respondent, Judge Bregy unlawfully made absolute a rule upon me to pay a counsel fee for the respondent in Siddall vs. Siddall. "(7) And I charge it was a further invasion of my rights and of the jurisdiction of the court of quarter sessions for JUdge Bregy to impose upon me the payment of money for the benefit of respondent in Siddall vs. Siddall; it being shOwn that the court of quarter sessions had passed upon the question, and ordered an ample allowance, which was more than paid up in full. "(8) And further, in her answer and in her affidavit to support the rule tor alimony and counsel fee, respondent charges upon oath that her allowance was in arrears. The charge was shown by the receipts of the guardians of the poor, and by her own affidavit on cross-examination, to be absolutely untrue and malicious. Nevertheless, for the purpose of hindering and delay-, ing me, Judge Bregy imposed upon me the payment of thirty-five dollars, declaring from the bench that I had brought the suit, and must pay for it. l charge that it was the bounden duty of Judge Bregy to then and there award me a decree of nullity, and to hold respondent for her perjury; that his notJdoing so was and is a denial of my rights as a citizen of the United States. "(9) I charge that the above acts of omission and commission upon the part of Judge Bregy are, In law and In fact, a. conspiracy with the respondent
and others to violate the prorlslons of the state and national law, and especlallytbe provisions of the first clause of article fOUl'teen of the constitution of the United States, to my Injury, oppression, threatening, and intimidation; that he is violating his oath of office, and using ·hls o:fll.ce to abridge the privileges and immunities to which I am of right entitled as a cItizen of the States; and that he denies me the equal protection of the laws wlthlnhlsjurlsdletion. . .' . Theodore "". Siddall, Plalntit!." To the derelldant filed a demurrer, assigning the following reasons,.l;I,mong others: The statement is vague, uncertain, and indefinite. The pla:IJltl¢ refers to the alleged records of a suit In a state. court without forth. None of the counts in said statement discloses any legal llabllity on ·the part of the defendant.
Theo·. W. Siddall, in pro. per. George S. Graham and F. Carroll Brewster, in support of demurrer.
Judges of courts of record are not liable for their judicial acts (Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 385; Scott v. Stansfield, L. R. 3 Exch. 220; Calder v. Balket, SHoore, P. O. 28), even if they exceed their jurisdiction (Lange v. Beuedlct, 78 N. Y. 12; Yates v. Lansing, 6 Am. Dec. 290; Stewart v. Cooley, 28 A.m. Rep. 690). The statement shows on its face that the acts complained of were performed by defeudant m a judicial capacity, iu an action over which he had jurisdictioIl.
DALLAS, Circuit Judge. The statement of claim in this case does not set forth a cause of action of which this court can take cognizance. The substance of the matters averred is that the defendant,by acts done or omitted by him in the exercise of his office as one of the judges of a court of the state of Pennsylvania, has caused damage to the plaintiff, who was a suitor before him; but this tribunal has no a'Uthority to review the judgments of the state courts, and hold their judges responsible for failure to correctly discharge their judicial duties. Judgment for defendant on the demurrer.
GORMULLY & JEFFERY MANUF'G 00. v. BRETZ et at. (Circuit Court, E. D. Peuusylvania. December 4, 1894.) No. 90.
Interrogatories should be confined to the matters set up In the bill. and be releV!Ult to the case which it alleges.
SAME-CREATION OF CORPORATION.
Where a blll charges that a corporation Is practically the same concern under a corporate organization as a partnership, which partnership Is charged· with the breach of a certain agreement, and the transfer of SUCh. agreement to the corporation, it is permissible to inquire, with the object of connecting the two organi!2lations, into the circumstances connected with the creation of the corporation, and the number of its shares Which were acquired by the members of the partnership.
This was. a suit by the GormuUy & Jeffery Manufacturing Company against Jacob S. Bretz and others.
The bill disclosed that the complainant. an Illinois corporation, was the owner of a number of letters patent relating to the manufacture of bicycles and tricycle structures; that the defendants, being copartners under the